Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

Status
Not open for further replies.
Study: Previous COVID-19 infection does not completely protect against reinfection in young people
A past COVID-19 infection does not completely protect against reinfection in young people, according to an observational study of more than 3,000 healthy members of the US Marines Corps most of whom were aged 18-20 years, published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal.

The authors say that despite previous infection and the presence of antibodies, vaccination is still necessary to boost immune responses, prevent reinfection, reduce transmission, and that young people should take up the vaccine wherever possible.

In the study, between May and November 2020, around 10% (19 out of 189) of participants who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (seropositive) became reinfected, compared with new infections in 50% (1,079 out of 2,247) of participants who had not previously been infected (seronegative).

Although the study was in young, fit, mostly male Marine recruits, the authors believe that the risk of reinfection found in their study will apply to many young people, but that the exact rates of reinfections will not be applicable elsewhere (owing to the crowded living conditions on a military base and close personal contact required for basic training likely contributing to a higher overall infection rate than seen elsewhere).

For example, a study of 4 million people in Denmark also found that the risk of infection was five times higher in people who had not before had COVID-19, but they found that only 0.65% of people who had COVID-19 during Denmark's first wave tested positive again during the second wave, compared with 3.3% of people who tested positive after initially being negative.

In addition, a preprint study including British healthcare workers found that those who had been not previously infected had a five times higher risk of being reinfected than people who had a past infection.

Professor Stuart Sealfon, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA, and senior author of the study, says:

As vaccine roll outs continue to gain momentum it is important to remember that, despite a prior COVID-19 infection, young people can catch the virus again and may still transmit it to others. Immunity is not guaranteed by past infection, and vaccinations that provide additional protection are still needed for those who have had COVID-19."

In the study, US Marine Corps recruits completed an unsupervised quarantine at home for two weeks before entering a Marine-supervised quarantine facility for another two weeks. They received antibody tests to establish whether any of the recruits were seropositive (they had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and had antibodies).

They were also tested for new SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline then weeks one and two of the quarantine, and completed a questionnaire including demographic information, risk factors, medical history, and COVID-19 symptoms.

Participants were excluded from the study if they tested positive for COVID-19 via PCR test during their supervised quarantine. After quarantine, recruits who did not have COVID-19 entered basic training and were tested for new SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR tests every two weeks, for six weeks and completed follow up questionnaires about any COVID-19 symptoms.

Recruits who tested positive for a new second COVID-19 infection during the study were isolated and the study team followed up with additional testing. Levels of neutralizing antibodies were also taken from subsequently infected seropositive and selected seropositive participants who were not reinfected during the study period.

Of the 2,346 Marines followed long enough for this analysis of reinfection rate, 189 were seropositive and 2,247 were seronegative at the start of the study. Across both groups of recruits, there were 1,098 (45%) new infections during the study. Among the seropositive participants, 19 (10%) tested positive for a second infection during the study. Of the recruits who were seronegative, 1,079 (48%) became infected during the study.

To understand why these reinfections occurred, the authors studied the reinfected and not infected participants' antibody responses. They found that, among the seropositive group, participants who became reinfected had lower antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 virus than those who did not become reinfected. In addition, in the seropositive group, neutralizing antibodies were less common (neutralizing antibodies were detected in 45 (83%) of 54 uninfected, and in six (32%) of 19 reinfected participants during the six weeks of observation).

Related Stories
Researchers identify two distinct phenotypes of COVID-19-associated ARDS
ECMO life-support therapy can increase odds of survival for critically-ill COVID-19 patients
Temperature difference in the upper and lower respiratory tract influences SARS-CoV-2 replication
Comparing new infections between seropositive and seronegative participants, the authors found that viral load (the amount of measurable SARS-CoV-2 virus) in reinfected seropositive recruits was on average only 10 times lower than in infected seronegative participants, which could mean that some reinfected individuals could still have a capacity to transmit infection, but the authors note that this will need further investigation.

In the study, most new COVID-19 cases were asymptomatic - 84% (16 out of 19 participants) in the seropositive group vs 68% (732 out of 1,079 participants) in the seronegative group - or had mild symptoms, and none were hospitalized.

Lt. Dawn Weir, of the Navy Medical Research Centre, USA, says: "Our study shows that some individuals with lower levels of neutralizing antibodies were reinfected, indicating that it is possible that previously infected and recovered people are susceptible to new SARS-CoV-2 infection at a later time. These reinfections may be asymptomatic, as observed in the majority of our participants.

This is an important consideration for maintaining U.S. military operational readiness, such as preventing future COVID-19 outbreaks among Marine units or aboard Navy ships. The takeaway message for all young people, including our military service members, is clear - immunity resulting from natural infection is not guaranteed; you still need to be vaccinated even if you have had COVID-19 and recovered."

The authors note some limitations to their study, including that it likely underestimates the risk of reinfection in previously infected individuals because it does not account for people with very low antibody levels following their past infection (in the study there were an unknown number of people in the seronegative group who had previously been infected but who did not have detectable levels of antibodies in their baseline antibody level test).

In the study there was a higher than usual drop-out rate of participants (a total of 566 participants - 34 recruits in the baseline seropositive group and 532 recruits in the baseline seronegative group - who began basic training and did not report for follow up two-weeks later). The study team were not told why any recruit did not return for follow up, but say that this could be a combination of individuals dropping out of the study, those who are transferred off the base for medical reasons, or who were separated from the US Marine Corps.

Lastly, the authors were unable to determine how seropositive recruits contracted their previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and confirm it by PCR test or determine how severe it was and what symptoms they had. They say they also could have missed detectable infections that occurred between the PCR testing every 2 weeks during the study.

Writing in a linked comment, María Velasco of Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Spain, said: "This study was conducted in a closed setting but provides some interesting insights regarding the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population or other settings. First, the rate of new SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive results is about 80% lower among seropositive individuals. These data confirm that seropositive individuals have a significant albeit limited protection for new infections […] Second, the rate of new SARS-CoV-2 PCR detection among seropositive Marines cases is not negligible (1·1 cases per person-year), even in the young and healthy population. Globally, these results indicate that COVID-19 does not provide an almost universal and long-lasting protective immunity such as measles."

She continued: "Efforts must be made to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from young oligosymptomatic individuals. Results from Letizia et al. suggest that even young individuals with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection should also be a target of vaccination to avoid a poorly noticed source of transmission."

Good luck with your second time getting it everyone


Another fun video
 
Last edited:
Like it's just automatic in his head that as long as there is a "pandemic" going on that it's "selfish" for people to want their freedoms.

It's "selfish" to want this dystopian psychological experiment by power-hungry tyrants to go to the hell it came from? More "little people" should be "selfish".
 
Last edited:
In the study, most new COVID-19 cases were asymptomatic - 84% (16 out of 19 participants) in the seropositive group vs 68% (732 out of 1,079 participants) in the seronegative group - or had mild symptoms, and none were hospitalized.

Good luck with your second time getting it everyone

Sounds like that won't be more than a mild cold. Meanwhile, my idiot friend who decided to take the jab a week after getting over Covid has been extremely ill for days now. He says it is way worse than covid, and is now fearful of getting the second jab. He will because he's a good little sheep. I'll let you guys know if he has a seizure or heart attack and dies in a few weeks.

Oh did you see how you still have a 1.3% death rate from covid even after being jabbed. 74 people in the jab group that caught covid died, that's nearly identical to the deathrate for the US in general, which is 1.8% Lot of seizures for a .5% savings. Also still a 7% hospitalization risk.
 
Last edited:
It's "selfish" to want this dystopian psychological experiment by power-hungry tyrants to go to the hell it came from? More "little people" should be "selfish".
They say we're fighting a war with the virus. In that case, there's nothing more noble than doing your part and contracting the disease as part of a strategy to achieve herd immunity and allow freedom to be restored. People have fought, killed, and died for far less than the freedoms the governments and health departments stole from us.

Millions dead around the world, millions who've mostly lived productive lives including those who were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom in WWII, is a price absolutely worth paying for the return of our freedoms. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen unless those millions dead include Pharma CEOs and global elites and the people killed by their security forces.
 
I still can't believe that "asymptomic cases" can even be infectious, or how people can be infectious before any symptoms? Doesn't that mean that the viral load is still low, and thus the viral load the person could spread would also be low? How infectious can someone like that be, really?

But it doesn't matter anymore. It really seems to be mass psychosis. I wonder how long we'll see the aftereffects of it. It already transformed many jobs, hitting hard certain cities because working from home became prevalent. There'll be a lot more sick days for basic sniffles from now on, I think.
In a positive spin on this, the whole thing threw a wrench in the whole "live in a pod" thing. All those "co-living/being spaces" and glorified mass dormitories for hipsters LARPing hippie communes in fancy cities are not really fashionable anymore, I guess. I wonder if they can manage to spin the narrative to bring them back at some point. Climate Change is going to be the next big thing, anyway...
 
Sounds like that won't be more than a mild cold. Meanwhile, my idiot friend who decided to take the jab a week after getting over Covid has been extremely ill for days now. He says it is way worse than covid, and is now fearful of getting the second jab. He will because he's a good little sheep. I'll let you guys know if he has a seizure or heart attack and dies in a few weeks.

Oh did you see how you still have a 1.3% death rate from covid even after being jabbed. 74 people in the jab group that caught covid died, that's nearly identical to the deathrate for the US in general, which is 1.8% Lot of seizures for a .5% savings. Also still a 7% hospitalization risk.
Get the Vax because COVID can get you a second time and you can keep spreading it, but also the Vax doesn't stop you from getting and spreading COVID just makes it so you don't feel as bad.

Watch out youngsters, if you've already had COVID you have a 10% chance of being reinfected so definitely get the Vax to be protected, but also the Vax is anywhere from 85-95% effective in stopping COVID pls don't do the math.

Also COVID's lethality rate is much less than 1%. It's like 0.2-0.3%.
 
Also COVID's lethality rate is much less than 1%. It's like 0.2-0.3%.
I was just going by the US statistics reported on bing, so all age groups, perhaps overreporting, but gotta work with what I had. It is much more deadly in the decrepit, so they will skew the averaged death rate.

If it was 0.3% overall, it would suggest the shot is increasing it by 1%, though, which would be hilarious. "Covid's not deadly enough, quick take this shot to make it 334% deadlier!"

I imagine they calculated the numbers in a similar fashion between the running total and the recent data. At the least we know 1.3% of the breakthrough cases with two shots and waiting a sufficient amount of time, were fatal and 7% required hospitalization.

We were told the shot would prevent severe sickness and death... you know, like those marines with their natural antibodies who were asymptomatic to sniffles. I guess the shot antibodies are just trash, as expected. They can only help via the spike protein instead of various antigen points like recovering from a natural infection... which also shows why it's retarded to get a shot after you had the coof. It does nothing.
 
I was just going by the US statistics reported on bing, so all age groups, perhaps overreporting, but gotta work with what I had. It is much more deadly in the decrepit, so they will skew the averaged death rate.

If it was 0.3% overall, it would suggest the shot is increasing it by 1%, though, which would be hilarious. "Covid's not deadly enough, quick take this shot to make it 334% deadlier!"

I imagine they calculated the numbers in a similar fashion between the running total and the recent data. At the least we know 1.3% of the breakthrough cases with two shots and waiting a sufficient amount of time, were fatal and 7% required hospitalization.
There is a discrepancy between Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and Infection Lethality Rate (IFR), usually CFR gets reported because its scarier, but CFR counts only confirmed cases while IFR tries to estimate the outcome of undetected and/or asymptomatic cases (this is of course, not counting the tendency to over-estimate COVID deaths).

So they are probably just comparing CFR to CFR.
 
That makes sense. I mean, good to know the IFR is probably even lower for my age group than the CFR of 0.05. Also further shows what a bad deal those shots are with their horrendous side effects. Better to be like those Marines, and if you have a covid break through case it just lasts a few hours and gives you the sniffles.
 
That makes sense. I mean, good to know the IFR is probably even lower for my age group than the CFR of 0.05. Also further shows what a bad deal those shots are with their horrendous side effects. Better to be like those Marines, and if you have a covid break through case it just lasts a few hours and gives you the sniffles.
Yeah the irony of that article is it's meant to DEBOONK that prior infection protects you yet it accidentally shows that natural recovery-immunity is just as good as vaccine induced immunity from most people.

Which means that natural recoveries help push the population towards "herd immunity" (no shit).
 
A lot of people realise it's a scam. It's just that it's very difficult to communicate that to friends/family, and so this farce continues..
There are a number of comments in this thread I'd love to print out and just scatter around on public transit and at my workplace. But even with the information people are demoralized or, the bigger problem, they just don't care. I think a huge sense of powerlessness has infected the population, and that's even worse than any pandemic because no one feels they have a voice and therefore, have no choice.

Just look at the election, and even with the information coming out in the mainstream (the Atlantic even did a piece on how surfaces aren't the issue and "hygiene theater" is now a thing) ... it's easy to just accept it and realize you're never getting rid of the face diaper and Plexiglas is making bank off of their social-distance separators. The disinfectant makers are also making bank; there's just too much money to be made off of this farce outside of Big Pharma.

I just wish someone would bring up that suicide and depression and poverty have skyrocketed to the point where people are dying more from them than COVID, but I guess that can't be officially "proven" yet. Someone literally asked "if that was my Final Solution" back when I was still stupid enough to post on Facebook.
Yeah, they can "prove" that black and brown people suffer more due to Covid (because most of them are fat and CHOOSE to eat unhealthy food, ffs they give their kids soda in bottles and Hot Cheetos as a snack) but since it's probably more white people suffering mental health issues over all of this (when you had a life worth living, a good job that you've lost, etc.) who the fuck cares? They hate us anyway. Oh another workplace shooting at FedEx... but that's the gun's fault, folks. What a great time to expand red-flag laws! Just when people are at the height of being fed the fuck up.
 

The South African Covid variant has caused an outbreak in a care home in a London borough where only half of staff have been vaccinated - the lowest rate in England.

At least 13 staff and 10 residents in a home in Lambeth, in the south of the capital, tested positive for the mutated strain of the virus this month.

Six of the residents and one of the staff members are believed to have been vaccinated at least two weeks earlier but got infected anyway, while others hadn't been jabbed.

So a third of the infected had already been vaccinated with both shots.

It's almost like the vaccines are fucking useless at stopping spread?

Anyway I'm sure the vaccinated won't get as sick, it's not like they would lie about that as well.

Sounds like that won't be more than a mild cold. Meanwhile, my idiot friend who decided to take the jab a week after getting over Covid has been extremely ill for days now. He says it is way worse than covid, and is now fearful of getting the second jab. He will because he's a good little sheep. I'll let you guys know if he has a seizure or heart attack and dies in a few weeks.

Oh did you see how you still have a 1.3% death rate from covid even after being jabbed. 74 people in the jab group that caught covid died, that's nearly identical to the deathrate for the US in general, which is 1.8% Lot of seizures for a .5% savings. Also still a 7% hospitalization risk.
Anyone who's had Covid and gets the jab is straight up retarded. Your friend already had proper sterilizing immunity, including from the mutated strains. The people who've had Covid before the vaccines are the lucky ones. I'm still hoping to catch a dose but no joy so far.
 
I still can't believe that "asymptomic cases" can even be infectious, or how people can be infectious before any symptoms? Doesn't that mean that the viral load is still low, and thus the viral load the person could spread would also be low? How infectious can someone like that be, really?

But it doesn't matter anymore. It really seems to be mass psychosis. I wonder how long we'll see the aftereffects of it. It already transformed many jobs, hitting hard certain cities because working from home became prevalent. There'll be a lot more sick days for basic sniffles from now on, I think.
Perhaps there was some more definite proof, but from what I've heard the "asymptomatic spread" cases were gleaned from the imperfect science of contact tracing. So some person has no symptoms, tests positive, $15.00 an hour hastily deputized contact tracers hired from the minimum wage pool by the county Dept of Health call people he was in contact with. One of them gets tested, is positive, and swears he didn't have contact with any other positive cases, forgetting the guy in the hardware store who sneezed next to him the week before...

And the sick day thing is a huge problem. At least in some states, if anyone has had any symptom they have to immediately quarantine and get tested. And the list of symptoms includes stuff like "sore throat", "headache: and the vague "body aches" or "muscle pain." So if you feel run down, perhaps have strep throat, a bacterial infection, etc--you're out.

This means key and critical people are out of work in offices, stores restaurants, construction, hotels, etc. If they choose not to get tested, they are out for 2 weeks from the last day they feel they have a symptom. And God forbid they test positive. Then the Contact Tracers call everyone and rule on high as to what other employees have to quarantine and they think nothing of shutting down whole workplaces de facto by saying several key people can't work.

I have gone 8 to 15 days without a day off covering for these situations, and the Heath Dept employees are unsympathetic. They simply don't understand why it's a big deal for an office, store, or restaurant to close for a few days, or they just love the power. Last week I was chided by a Contact Tracer asking about "disinfection procedures" despite the recent CDC guidance on surface spread. I was also told anyone who had contact with a positive case had to quarantine even if they had a vaccination, unless it was more than 1 week after their last shot or less than 3 months since.

Also most times their guidance is to say even if someone tests negative they should still quarantine just in case, and if they are positive and then retest negative it doesn't count and they still have to stay home for X number of days.

Most businesses are reluctant to change their models to accommodate this, because they think it will go away soon and don't want to hire more employees as a reserve or stomach closing for random days and weeks due to staffing. And there seems to be no end in sight. I really think this notion of quarantining for every sick symptom will be the law of the land a year from now, 5 years from now, etc. Employees love it, because if they don't need the money they can get unimpeachable time off, maybe even paid.
 
View attachment 2091845
Archive your videos pleb
Notice Fauci never uses numbers or data.

He doesn't say "infection rates are at around 7%, we need it closer to 3% to be safe." He says "It's very high, we need it lower." He's supposed to be the foremost expert in epidemiology in the country, so he should know the current data and the target.

He's making up arbitrary bullshit so he can keep us inside as long as he wants.

EDIT: He says we're at 60k cases a day, but still never gives a metric for when we can go back to our lives again.
 
Last edited:
Holy shit, that's some bad statistics. I mean you do know that well into the 20th century there were all sorts of nasty illnesses going around that dropped children and the elderly like flies and left survivors with shit like reduced lung capacity, permanent brain damage, sterility, etc? 1-2% a year is after the worst shit like smallpox had regularly used vaccines against it, doctors started doing shit like washing their hands and tools before operating on patients, and cities realized they might need to do something about all that stagnant water and human waste.

Yet somehow we still hit 2 billion people by 1927, and that's with almost 15 years of massive fucking wars, famine, and yes, plagues including Spanish flu and all sorts of other nasty shit all over Europe, Asia, Africa (10% of Africans died in World War I because colonial nations systemically looted food to feed themselves), and parts of Latin America. We hit 1 billion people around 1800 right in the middle of yep, another global war where we had barely any idea what vaccines were and how they worked and common medical knowledge in many parts of the world was hacking people open with dirty tools and letting them bleed.

You seriously overestimate how dangerous this is.
Given how birthrates are below replacement already in most of the civilised world he would have a point... until the sudden decrease in house prices due to boomers being removed encourages people to start having families like it's the 1950s again.
 
Last edited:
Study: Previous COVID-19 infection does not completely protect against reinfection in young people
A past COVID-19 infection does not completely protect against reinfection in young people, according to an observational study of more than 3,000 healthy members of the US Marines Corps most of whom were aged 18-20 years, published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal.

The authors say that despite previous infection and the presence of antibodies, vaccination is still necessary to boost immune responses, prevent reinfection, reduce transmission, and that young people should take up the vaccine wherever possible.

In the study, between May and November 2020, around 10% (19 out of 189) of participants who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (seropositive) became reinfected, compared with new infections in 50% (1,079 out of 2,247) of participants who had not previously been infected (seronegative).

Although the study was in young, fit, mostly male Marine recruits, the authors believe that the risk of reinfection found in their study will apply to many young people, but that the exact rates of reinfections will not be applicable elsewhere (owing to the crowded living conditions on a military base and close personal contact required for basic training likely contributing to a higher overall infection rate than seen elsewhere).

For example, a study of 4 million people in Denmark also found that the risk of infection was five times higher in people who had not before had COVID-19, but they found that only 0.65% of people who had COVID-19 during Denmark's first wave tested positive again during the second wave, compared with 3.3% of people who tested positive after initially being negative.

In addition, a preprint study including British healthcare workers found that those who had been not previously infected had a five times higher risk of being reinfected than people who had a past infection.

Professor Stuart Sealfon, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA, and senior author of the study, says:

As vaccine roll outs continue to gain momentum it is important to remember that, despite a prior COVID-19 infection, young people can catch the virus again and may still transmit it to others. Immunity is not guaranteed by past infection, and vaccinations that provide additional protection are still needed for those who have had COVID-19."

In the study, US Marine Corps recruits completed an unsupervised quarantine at home for two weeks before entering a Marine-supervised quarantine facility for another two weeks. They received antibody tests to establish whether any of the recruits were seropositive (they had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and had antibodies).

They were also tested for new SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline then weeks one and two of the quarantine, and completed a questionnaire including demographic information, risk factors, medical history, and COVID-19 symptoms.

Participants were excluded from the study if they tested positive for COVID-19 via PCR test during their supervised quarantine. After quarantine, recruits who did not have COVID-19 entered basic training and were tested for new SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR tests every two weeks, for six weeks and completed follow up questionnaires about any COVID-19 symptoms.

Recruits who tested positive for a new second COVID-19 infection during the study were isolated and the study team followed up with additional testing. Levels of neutralizing antibodies were also taken from subsequently infected seropositive and selected seropositive participants who were not reinfected during the study period.

Of the 2,346 Marines followed long enough for this analysis of reinfection rate, 189 were seropositive and 2,247 were seronegative at the start of the study. Across both groups of recruits, there were 1,098 (45%) new infections during the study. Among the seropositive participants, 19 (10%) tested positive for a second infection during the study. Of the recruits who were seronegative, 1,079 (48%) became infected during the study.

To understand why these reinfections occurred, the authors studied the reinfected and not infected participants' antibody responses. They found that, among the seropositive group, participants who became reinfected had lower antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 virus than those who did not become reinfected. In addition, in the seropositive group, neutralizing antibodies were less common (neutralizing antibodies were detected in 45 (83%) of 54 uninfected, and in six (32%) of 19 reinfected participants during the six weeks of observation).

Related Stories
Researchers identify two distinct phenotypes of COVID-19-associated ARDS
ECMO life-support therapy can increase odds of survival for critically-ill COVID-19 patients
Temperature difference in the upper and lower respiratory tract influences SARS-CoV-2 replication
Comparing new infections between seropositive and seronegative participants, the authors found that viral load (the amount of measurable SARS-CoV-2 virus) in reinfected seropositive recruits was on average only 10 times lower than in infected seronegative participants, which could mean that some reinfected individuals could still have a capacity to transmit infection, but the authors note that this will need further investigation.

In the study, most new COVID-19 cases were asymptomatic - 84% (16 out of 19 participants) in the seropositive group vs 68% (732 out of 1,079 participants) in the seronegative group - or had mild symptoms, and none were hospitalized.

Lt. Dawn Weir, of the Navy Medical Research Centre, USA, says: "Our study shows that some individuals with lower levels of neutralizing antibodies were reinfected, indicating that it is possible that previously infected and recovered people are susceptible to new SARS-CoV-2 infection at a later time. These reinfections may be asymptomatic, as observed in the majority of our participants.

This is an important consideration for maintaining U.S. military operational readiness, such as preventing future COVID-19 outbreaks among Marine units or aboard Navy ships. The takeaway message for all young people, including our military service members, is clear - immunity resulting from natural infection is not guaranteed; you still need to be vaccinated even if you have had COVID-19 and recovered."

The authors note some limitations to their study, including that it likely underestimates the risk of reinfection in previously infected individuals because it does not account for people with very low antibody levels following their past infection (in the study there were an unknown number of people in the seronegative group who had previously been infected but who did not have detectable levels of antibodies in their baseline antibody level test).

In the study there was a higher than usual drop-out rate of participants (a total of 566 participants - 34 recruits in the baseline seropositive group and 532 recruits in the baseline seronegative group - who began basic training and did not report for follow up two-weeks later). The study team were not told why any recruit did not return for follow up, but say that this could be a combination of individuals dropping out of the study, those who are transferred off the base for medical reasons, or who were separated from the US Marine Corps.

Lastly, the authors were unable to determine how seropositive recruits contracted their previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and confirm it by PCR test or determine how severe it was and what symptoms they had. They say they also could have missed detectable infections that occurred between the PCR testing every 2 weeks during the study.

Writing in a linked comment, María Velasco of Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Spain, said: "This study was conducted in a closed setting but provides some interesting insights regarding the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population or other settings. First, the rate of new SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive results is about 80% lower among seropositive individuals. These data confirm that seropositive individuals have a significant albeit limited protection for new infections […] Second, the rate of new SARS-CoV-2 PCR detection among seropositive Marines cases is not negligible (1·1 cases per person-year), even in the young and healthy population. Globally, these results indicate that COVID-19 does not provide an almost universal and long-lasting protective immunity such as measles."

She continued: "Efforts must be made to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from young oligosymptomatic individuals. Results from Letizia et al. suggest that even young individuals with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection should also be a target of vaccination to avoid a poorly noticed source of transmission."

Good luck with your second time getting it everyone


Another fun video
Behold, as the Branch COVIDian spreads propaganda that if you believe it, would mean that the vaccines as well are useless and do not provide protection.

I gotta love how much Branch COVIDians themselves view their bodies as experiments for the state to do as they please.

Sounds like that won't be more than a mild cold. Meanwhile, my idiot friend who decided to take the jab a week after getting over Covid has been extremely ill for days now. He says it is way worse than covid, and is now fearful of getting the second jab. He will because he's a good little sheep. I'll let you guys know if he has a seizure or heart attack and dies in a few weeks.

Oh did you see how you still have a 1.3% death rate from covid even after being jabbed. 74 people in the jab group that caught covid died, that's nearly identical to the deathrate for the US in general, which is 1.8% Lot of seizures for a .5% savings. Also still a 7% hospitalization risk.
Get your friend a collar with a cow bell on it because he's nigger cattle.
 
Notice Fauci never uses numbers or data.

He doesn't say "infection rates are at around 7%, we need it closer to 3% to be safe." He says "It's very high, we need it lower." He's supposed to be the foremost expert in epidemiology in the country, so he should know the current data and the target.

He's making up arbitrary bullshit so he can keep us inside as long as he wants.
Yeah that's what the guy is hassling him over. There's clearly no real threshold of a concrete number in mind.
I hope he throws this exact same fit every time they hold these hearings.
 
The tree of liberty is thirsty, Dr. Fauci.
I understand it's a matter Formality and tradition to call him a doctor. but he's a doctor in name only
Notice Fauci never uses numbers or data.

He doesn't say "infection rates are at around 7%, we need it closer to 3% to be safe." He says "It's very high, we need it lower." He's supposed to be the foremost expert in epidemiology in the country, so he should know the current data and the target.

He's making up arbitrary bullshit so he can keep us inside as long as he wants.
Doctor Fauci might as well be as credible as doctor Phil at this point. Fuck at least Phil is more entertaining
 
Perhaps there was some more definite proof, but from what I've heard the "asymptomatic spread" cases were gleaned from the imperfect science of contact tracing. So some person has no symptoms, tests positive, $15.00 an hour hastily deputized contact tracers hired from the minimum wage pool by the county Dept of Health call people he was in contact with. One of them gets tested, is positive, and swears he didn't have contact with any other positive cases, forgetting the guy in the hardware store who sneezed next to him the week before...

And the sick day thing is a huge problem. At least in some states, if anyone has had any symptom they have to immediately quarantine and get tested. And the list of symptoms includes stuff like "sore throat", "headache: and the vague "body aches" or "muscle pain." So if you feel run down, perhaps have strep throat, a bacterial infection, etc--you're out.

This means key and critical people are out of work in offices, stores restaurants, construction, hotels, etc. If they choose not to get tested, they are out for 2 weeks from the last day they feel they have a symptom. And God forbid they test positive. Then the Contact Tracers call everyone and rule on high as to what other employees have to quarantine and they think nothing of shutting down whole workplaces de facto by saying several key people can't work.

I have gone 8 to 15 days without a day off covering for these situations, and the Heath Dept employees are unsympathetic. They simply don't understand why it's a big deal for an office, store, or restaurant to close for a few days, or they just love the power. Last week I was chided by a Contact Tracer asking about "disinfection procedures" despite the recent CDC guidance on surface spread. I was also told anyone who had contact with a positive case had to quarantine even if they had a vaccination, unless it was more than 1 week after their last shot or less than 3 months since.

Also most times their guidance is to say even if someone tests negative they should still quarantine just in case, and if they are positive and then retest negative it doesn't count and they still have to stay home for X number of days.

Most businesses are reluctant to change their models to accommodate this, because they think it will go away soon and don't want to hire more employees as a reserve or stomach closing for random days and weeks due to staffing. And there seems to be no end in sight. I really think this notion of quarantining for every sick symptom will be the law of the land a year from now, 5 years from now, etc. Employees love it, because if they don't need the money they can get unimpeachable time off, maybe even paid.
People also don't know what "asymptomatic" means.

I can't count how many people I've seen who say "I got COVID and I was asymptomatic! I had a little headache and a sore throat, but nothing else!" Surprise, retard, those are symptoms.

Or people who treat the presymptomatic incubation period as "being asymptomatic". The media loved that one last year, so many news stories about people who visited elderly relatives while they were feeling fine (or had recently tested negative), then that night or the next day developed symptoms, and then lo and behold grandma got COVID and died. I'm surprised they didn't come up with some bullshit like "sudden COVID". I was completely asymptomatic, until I wasn't!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back